NVIDIA Working on Second GK110-based GeForce Graphics Card for Summer

[radrok]

I was too convinced that GK104 wasn't meant to be the GTX 680 but when you look at the date on the HPC GK110 then you can see that it was too late to be even shown as a consumer part.

I would have been GF100 all over again, infact there is no GK100 and I'm fairly sure the reason are the very poor early 28nm yields.

I mean 7.1 billions transistors on a new manufacturing node? Would have costed an arm and a leg to produce in a sizable quantity for their GTX 670/680 lineup.

I think that if the 7970 was faster than it is now, like 10-15% more then Nvidia would have launched GK104 as midrange chip and they would have launched the GK110 as GTX 680 when they could have had reasonable yields.

Nvidia would have probably been without a single GPU capable of fighting AMD toe to toe and they would have probably used a dual GK104 solution.

But meh things have gone differently and we can only speculate.

 

[sergionography]

this is so lame, when amd offered 30-40% better performance than nvidia with the hd7970 they did so at the same price point, and ever since the gap got even wider with significant improvements on drivers and then the ghz edition all at the same price point, but look at nvidia now barely coming out 25% faster and trying to milk their customers with 1000 dollars
idk but the review sites should be more harsh about this.
I know businesses are no charity, but people should support amd as they have proven to have better business practices than both nvidia and intel

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

this is so lame, when amd offered 30-40% better performance than nvidia with the hd7970 they did so at the same price point, and ever since the gap got even wider with significant improvements on drivers and then the ghz edition all at the same price point, but look at nvidia now barely coming out 25% faster and trying to milk their customers with 1000 dollars
idk but the review sites should be more harsh about this.
I know businesses are no charity, but people should support amd as they have proven to have better business practices than both nvidia and intel

Some vote with their wallet.
I agree btw

 

[Jacez]

I don't understand the pricing scheme anymore.

Back when GTX 280 was released, it cost 500$.
Then, GTX 295 was released half a year later and cost 500$.
Then, GTX 480 was released a year later and cost 500$.
Then, GTX 580 was released half a year later and cost 500$.
Then, GTX 680 was released a year and a half later and cost 500$.
Then, GTX 690 was released a quarter later and cost 1,000$!
Then, GTX Titan was released half a year later and cost 1,000$!

Okay, so the prices don't go down anymore.
Does that mean that GTX 780 will cost 2,000$? GTX 880 will cost 4,000$?

Why are we letting this happen?

 

[LAN_deRf_HA]

There already is something to fit in that spot. The Titan. It should have been $750 from the start. The 690 is still the real Titan.

 

[HumanSmoke]

I know businesses are no charity, but people should support amd as they have proven to have better business practices than both nvidia and intel

Probably relative to how much you're affected by a particular issue. For example, when was the last time Intel muzzled a forum site from discussing an issue with its software ?

I don't understand the pricing scheme anymore.
Back when GTX 280 was released, it cost 500$.
Then, GTX 295 was released half a year later and cost 500$.
Then, GTX 480 was released a year later and cost 500$.
Then, GTX 580 was released half a year later and cost 500$.
Then, GTX 680 was released a year and a half later and cost 500$.
Then, GTX 690 was released a quarter later and cost 1,000$!
Then, GTX Titan was released half a year later and cost 1,000$!
Okay, so the prices don't go down anymore.
Does that mean that GTX 780 will cost 2,000$? GTX 880 will cost 4,000$?
Why are we letting this happen?

The GTX 280 was $649 at launch
You're also missing the GTX 590 ($699. As was the HD 6990), and previously, the nominal MSRP's were:
9800 GX2 $599
8800 Ultra $630
7800 GTX 512MB $650 (as was the X1900 XTX launched a few weeks later)
6800 Ultra Extreme 512MB $899
6800 Ultra Extreme 256MB $549 (as was the X850 XT PE)
FX 5950 Ultra $500 (as was the Radeon 9800 XT)
FX 5900 Ultra $500 (as was the Radeon 9800 PRO)
You notice the trend ? When both camps have broadly equal performance cards available, the price is also held in check. This is the same regardless of vendor. The HD 5970 held sway as the single fastest card from its launch up until the GTX 590 and HD 6990 eventuated. The HD 5970 was nominally a $600 card, and as "top dog" held pricing lower/similar performing cards at lower price points - notably the GTX 480 and GTX 580.

 

[eventide]

Probably relative to how much you're affected by a particular issue. For example, when was the last time Intel muzzled a forum site from discussing an issue with its software ?

The GTX 280 was $649 at launch
You're also missing the GTX 590 ($699. As was the HD 6990), and previously, the nominal MSRP's were:
9800 GX2 $599
8800 Ultra $630
7800 GTX 512MB $650 (as was the X1900 XTX launched a few weeks later)
6800 Ultra Extreme 512MB $899
6800 Ultra Extreme 256MB $549 (as was the X850 XT PE)
FX 5950 Ultra $500 (as was the Radeon 9800 XT)
FX 5900 Ultra $500 (as was the Radeon 9800 PRO)
You notice the trend ? When both camps have broadly equal performance cards available, the price is also held in check. This is the same regardless of vendor. The HD 5970 held sway as the single fastest card from its launch up until the GTX 590 and HD 6990 eventuated. The HD 5970 was nominally a $600 card, and as "top dog" held pricing lower/similar performing cards at lower price points - notably the GTX 480 and GTX 580.

Frankly, are you being paid for all your efforts? So much statistics for a mere forum bypasser... Would take an hour just to collect and compile all the info you've amply piled up here...

 

[[H]@RD5TUFF]

Best be better than the titan at a lower cost or fail IMO.

 

[HumanSmoke]

Frankly, are you being paid for all your efforts? So much statistics for a mere forum bypasser... Would take an hour just to collect and compile all the info you're amply piled up here...

Paid ?
Indirectly, I suppose. I've been an avid hardware buff for more years than I care to remember, and started a fairly comprehensive database of specs, reviews, usage, and evolution of graphics around the time that workstation graphics started becoming interesting for me ( i.e. SGI's IRIS ~1983)...back when information still arrived in a physical mailbox in the form of magazines, trade publications, and books.
An abridged version is presently in the editing stage for publication as a series at another site.

 

[Xzibit]

Hes a regular Wildstrom

 

[Relayer]

Cool, a $900 card.

 

[alwayssts]

Hmm.

When I see these oddities appear, I wonder what their point is other than dumping salvage.

I keep pondering the possibility of AMD going the RV770 route with Hainan and make not only 1792x2, but 1536x2 cards (remember the 4850x2?). The former would certainly make more sense as a >300w card to take on 690 (greater than 1019mhz and using >6ghz ram would be needed to beat it...in theory AMD could go up to 1111/7000), but the later would make a ton of sense in the 225-300w club. It may not be directly comparable to Titan (even if it is on paper) because of multi-gpu versus single chip issues, but it could certainly battle something like this at a (slightly) more realistic price point and seem appealing.

BTW, it would seem obvious the point of this is to equal absolute performance of 7970 at stock...or roughly 90% of Titan. To put it another way: ~1.5x 7950/660ti/7870XT (Tahiti LE)

 

[OneCool]

Well if you look at it from this point.Can nvidia dual gpu the "Titan" on one pcb? Im guessing no they cant.(atleast not now)Think Titan core x2 with 12gb GDDR5.

Im guessing their setting this up to be the dual gpu one pcb monster.

 

[Xzibit]

If this is a trend for Nvidia then it will play out something like this.

K20x = GTX Titan $999
K20 = GTX Titan-mini $849-$899
K6000 = GTX Titan-supermini $699-799 due to 3GB memory (Same performance as 7970 GHz)

 

[HumanSmoke]

Well if you look at it from this point.Can nvidia dual gpu the "Titan" on one pcb? Im guessing no they cant.(atleast not now)

No reason why they can't except:
1. I doubt Nvidia actually want meaningful quantities of single GeForce GK 110 cards sold (since it diverts from Quadro/Tesla), let alone letting them go out two at a time.
2. The HD 7990 that is available at present uses a non-PCI SIG three 8-pin PCI-E power connection. That would also be enough to drive 2 x GK 110 + vRAM, if AMD decided upon not limiting clocks of a reference 7990 and going with the TUL design.
3. The main problem for a dual-GK 110 would likely be physical PCB real estate limitation with the amount of memory chips required. 3GB per GPU would be feasible...I don't think 2 x 6GB would be.
4. If AMD decide to redesign their 7990 into a semblance of a production card (dual slot, 2 x 8-pin PCI-E) then Nvidia would likely see a more aggressively clocked dual GK 104 as a likely competitor.

Personally I doubt that a dual-GPU war is high up on either vendors "must have" list. The R&D versus PR gain becomes increasingly smaller as the second generation of 28nm approaches.

 

[atikkur]

price it $499-550, and lower all keppler lines, gtx680 for 399, gtx670 for 299, and so on. everybody wins yeaaahhh,,,,....

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

Well if you look at it from this point.Can nvidia dual gpu the "Titan" on one pcb? Im guessing no they cant.(atleast not now)Think Titan core x2 with 12gb GDDR5.

Im guessing their setting this up to be the dual gpu one pcb monster.

Who's soul will you be selling to get this?

The 7990 and 690 are out there in such limited quantities it isn't funny. The Titan is an even rarer breed. Let's assume you can physically make this card (read: huge assumption).

Your $1000 card is doubled. On top of that, you've got a price premium for all the unique components. I can't see anyone buying a $2000+ card, and I can't see any card manufacturer ever putting something out there that has absolutely no market. Anyone running two Titans obviously has some serious hardware, which would make running a pair in SLI very easy. Even crunchers would have a hard time justifying a single card that has that poor of a cost-benefit ratio.

 

[DarkOCean]

K6000 = GTX Titan-supermini $699-799 due to 3GB memory (Same performance as 7970 GHz)

how is that even make sense at that price?

 

[Xzibit]

how is that even make sense at that price?

Nvidia hasnt made any sense as of late but if the K6000 ends up being a Geforce I dont think it will hit the market at a competative price.
GTX 680 4GB $539-$599 so I would expect it to cost more.

With 7790 ready to go and the 655 TI around the corner. There bigger brothers shouldnt be too far away making these cards even more overpriced.

 

[Jacez]

Probably relative to how much you're affected by a particular issue. For example, when was the last time Intel muzzled a forum site from discussing an issue with its software ?

The GTX 280 was $649 at launch
You're also missing the GTX 590 ($699. As was the HD 6990), and previously, the nominal MSRP's were:
9800 GX2 $599
8800 Ultra $630
7800 GTX 512MB $650 (as was the X1900 XTX launched a few weeks later)
6800 Ultra Extreme 512MB $899
6800 Ultra Extreme 256MB $549 (as was the X850 XT PE)
FX 5950 Ultra $500 (as was the Radeon 9800 XT)
FX 5900 Ultra $500 (as was the Radeon 9800 PRO)
You notice the trend ? When both camps have broadly equal performance cards available, the price is also held in check. This is the same regardless of vendor. The HD 5970 held sway as the single fastest card from its launch up until the GTX 590 and HD 6990 eventuated. The HD 5970 was nominally a $600 card, and as "top dog" held pricing lower/similar performing cards at lower price points - notably the GTX 480 and GTX 580.

Wait, you're just mixing everything up. Let's organize.

7800 GTX 512 - 600$ / X1900XT - 400$ (identical performance to X1900XTX)
8800 GTX - 600$ / HD 2900XT - 400$
8800 Ultra - 700$ / N/A
9800 GX2 - 600$ / HD 3870 - 450$
GTX 280 - 500$ / HD 4870 - 300$
GTX 295 - 500$ / HD 4870X2 - 550$
GTX 480 - 500$ / HD 5870 - 350$
GTX 580 - 500$ / HD 6970 - 350$
GTX 590 - 700$ / HD 6990 - 700$
GTX 680 - 500$ / HD 7970 - 500$
GTX 690 - 1,000$ / HD 7990 - 1,000$
GTX Titan - 1,000$ / N/A

So, as you can see.. with the GTX 590/HD 6990, nVidia and AMD have set a dangerous precedent of pricing Dual-GPU cards above 600$, and nVidia exacerbated this by pricing the GTX 690 at 1,000$. This caused the non-reference HD 7990 to be released at an identical 1,000$.

This means we'll never again have our 500$ GTX 890's, like the GTX 295, and it sucks.

 

[btarunr]

isn't a scaled down titan an oxymoron

I can see the new nvidia naming scheme now
gtx titan
gtx diminutive
gtx half-pint
gtx runt
gtx pygmy

gtx 780?

 

[Xzibit]

gtx 780?

Well I was going off the fact that its a GK110 and I really dont see it being a 780 if its going to be 10-15% slower than the Titan. Nvidia put themselfs in a box with Titan. If 780 is a further crippled GK110 thats a lot of leftover K20 chips.
Say its released 2 month from now that would be a $500 premium on a Titan card. Dont see that happening and it will just look bad.
Not saying they have to but I really dont see them justifying selling a GK110 chip for $450-$500 when 2 months earlier your selling it at double the price for 10-15% performance increase.


That just leaves them open for AMD to out clock them with there refresh at a more attractive price point.

 

[HumanSmoke]

This post is more a case of adding info rather than taking issue. Sorry for the OT in advance...

Wait, you're just mixing everything up. Let's organize.
7800 GTX 512 - 600$ / X1900XT - 400$ (identical performance to X1900XTX)

Sorry, you don't get to pick and choose what model is defined as the top SKU. The XTX was clocked higher in core and memory than the XT, and is also marginally faster because of it. $649....as was the 7800GTX 512MB-as I noted. The 256MB version was $600

8800 GTX - 600$ / HD 2900XT - 400$

The R600 card was priced lower, because it was little faster than the preceding series, and priced in accordance with the 8800GTS 640MB

8800 Ultra - 700$ / N/A
9800 GX2 - 600$ / HD 3870 - 450$???
GTX 280 - 500$ / HD 4870 - 300$
GTX 295 - 500$ / HD 4870X2 - 550$

The HD 3870 was $249 at launch- I presume you mean HD 3870 X2

GTX 480 - 500$ / HD 5870 - 350$
GTX 580 - 500$ / HD 6970 - 350$

As well as the HD 5970 ($699-799), HD 5870 Eyefinity 6 ($479).
GTX 590 - 700$ / HD 6990 - 700$
GTX 680 - 500$ / HD 7970 - 500$ (note: the 7970 was $549 at launch)
GTX 690 - 1,000$ / HD 7990 - 1,000$
GTX Titan - 1,000$ / N/A

So, as you can see.. with the GTX 590/HD 6990, nVidia and AMD have set a dangerous precedent of pricing Dual-GPU cards above 600$

Not really. These things tend to cyclic. The userbase as a general rule doesn't allow the price to stay at peak levels- it simply isn't pervasive enough. If it was we'd be paying a lot more than $1K for any enthusiast single GPU graphics card. The $500 single GPU card has been around for a few generations, and for some reason people think that the price has always been in vogue. Once upon a time, $280-300 bought a top of the line card- it didn't stop companies jamming some extra goodies onboard and charging a 200% mark-up. You might also note that an SLI solution could cost $1800-2500 scarcely two years later ( Google Quantum3D Obsidian Pro 100DB-4440 or 100SB-4440V for instance), then factor in inflation. You might also note that ATi's All-In-Wonder's progenitors were generally amongst the trendsetters in incrementally raising prices towards (and past) the $500 mark in the first place for the volume production high end.

 

[Recus]

Nvidia releases new card - haters rise.

 

[arbiter]

Inflation? for a matter of arguement over 690 costing 1000$, there was a certain ATI based gpu that was selling anywhere from 1200-1500$.